About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
. for instance, george h.p. bush when he was vice president was debating against geraldine fer row and said why not harvest moon. >> challengers can benefit from being on stage with an incumbent. we've seen that before. take a look at this clip. >> ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? >> now, this race has often been compared to the carter reagan race in 1980 and the romney campaign has used that line of attack. is that the idea of what you think we might hear tonight? what kind of zinger are we going to hear? >> well, in reagan's case, he took from franklin roosevelt, who used that in the 1930s over the radio, so these things have a long lineage. i think you're right about challengers. you look at all the debates where there's been an incumbent debate. almost always, the challengers wins the debate. exceptions. gerald ford in '76 against jimmy carter, who felt very nervous debating with an incumbent president. he was little bit modest. then clinton and bob dole. >> howard dean said that president obama should not make the same mistake al gore did in 2000 against georg
to win. george w. bush, back in 2004, was at kind of 48% in october, but then by the time the election came around, he was, you know, at 52%, 53%. so he kind of passed that threshold. so it's very important because again, if people approve of you, they're going to give you the benefit of the doubt, even if they believe that things are not headed in the right direction yet. it means that they have a certain sense of optimism about what you can do for them in the future, and that's so important for president obama right now, because mitt romney is making the case that the president cannot fix the economy, that he's the only one who can do that and the public at least for now seems to be saying you know what, that may not be true. we're going to give him another shot at it. >> john, did all this stuff happen really in the wake of the convention? it seems like, maybe i'm wrong, but the convention kind of changed the narrative or the mood or something. did it? >> there's no question that the democrats, meaning the president, got much more out of his convention than governor romney and the r
. >> they matter enormously. one of the models that president obama has, president george h.w. bush, president bush senior. his rolodex and his friendships made an enormous difference in the quality of his presidency on foreign policy. you know, when saddam went into kuwait and the united states was able to round up all those friends, a lot of that had to do with the personal relationships that george bush senior had established over time, and people give you the benefit of the doubt when there's skepticism. look at the distrust that exists between netanyahu and president obama on that very issue alone. we could have a conflict with iran that sort of comes through just the two people not having a very good personal relationship and maybe misreading each other. i think these things are very, very important in international diplomacy, especially in the middle east. >> critics of governor romney say look, he's done his share of light interviews but it's a different, i mean, the standard for somebody campaigning who is not in public office and somebody who is president of the united states is very diff
, former specialist assistant to george w. bush, ron christine joining us, and freedom watch president, bush staffer, brad blakeman. brad, good to have you with us. brad, starting, if i may, with you. this is becoming an unwieldy weight for the administration. surely, they understand how urgent it is that the record be set straight and soon. >> well, here's where the cover up begins. they are trying to cover tracks by saying initially the intelligent services told them it was a spoon tape yows attack, but the key questions, lou, is what did the president know? when did he know it? when did the narrative change? did the president ask questions? was he briefed in person? or rely on paper reports? one thing is for sure, lou, and that's this. if this happened in new york, if one of the ambassadors picked off the streets in new york and the consulate in new york to the u.n. was damaged like in libya, there would have been hell to pay. what's the difference between where our ambassadors picked off by terrorist terrorists whether the votes of new york or benghazi. how is it possible the admin
. george w. bush did not have a friendly media, and the last time i checked, he was elected twice. so i don't think it's impacted this campaign. the romney campaign is their own worst enemy. >> today it's worse than ever before where people are blatantly out to protect this president and not give true reporting. >> well, that's a real suggestion of analysis, that's suggestive analysis, and you're entitled to your -- >> i gave you examples. >> a couple of them are false. the fact that the president did not have a press conference to announce the fact that this was a terrorist attack does not mean he didn't announce it. >> [inaudible] >> he said it publicly. jon: but it has been uncovered by our bret baier just today that the administration within the first 24, maybe 48 hours knew that the benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, and yet susan rice, the ambassador to the united nations -- >> right. jon: -- was out on the sunday shows four or five days after the attack -- >> saying that it budget. >> right. jon, frankly, i don't know enough about the sequence of events to comment on that. >> bu
of approaching. you think back to george w. bush when the whole war on terror started and there was always talk about what a tough battle this was going to be for the rest of our lifetimes basically. and sort of admitting that up fronts, but that the efforts were diligent to make sure that we were going to continue to combat this war on terror. it's almost as if right now 36 days before the election, you don't really want to talk about that side of it, that there might be a reinsurgentence now of equaled, even though osama bin laden is dead. there might still be a resurgence of al-qaeda. >> eric: last night on "60 minutes," there was a fantastic piece on interviewing president karzai from afghanistan and also our general boots on the ground in afghanistan, they have a little bit different take on where al-qaeda is. take a listen. >> al-qaeda has come back. al-qaeda is a resilient organization. but they're not here in large numbers. but al-qaeda doesn't have to be anywhere in large numbers. >> the reason for the nato and american intervention in afghanistan was terrorism. terrorism has not gone
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)